alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>               0000096412
<NAME>              TASTY BAKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                     729
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           23,875
<ALLOWANCES>                           (2,542)
<INVENTORY>                              3,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        28,599
<PP&E>                                 154,324
<DEPRECIATION>                       (107,899)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         100,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   13,884
<BONDS>                                 12,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 4,558
<OTHER-SE>                              37,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           100,729
<SALES>                                 76,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        77,391
<CGS>                                   48,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           48,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         3,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          3,960
<INCOME-TAX>                             1,305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      2,655
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             2,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.33
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tracey L. Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 7, 2008



By:

/s/ Tracey L. StockwellTracey L. Stockwell Principal Financial Officer
# C_2007315EN.01004601.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/46

---

Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Daskalakis v Commission

(Case F-107/07)

(2007/C 315/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Daskalakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 28 June 2007 to the extent that it does not award the management premium provided for in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations for a period longer than one year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 28 June 2007 to the extent that it does not award the management premium provided for in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations for a period longer than one year;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official called upon to occupy temporarily a post of Head of Unit, appeals the decision by which the Commission, when calculating his salary, refused to take into account the premium that he was granted as Head of Unit ad interim, on the ground that, according to Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, this premium could be allowed only for one year, even if the Applicant was still acting as Head of Unit after that period had expired.

The Applicant claims that the time-limit provided for in the abovementioned provision refers only to the duration of the temporary posting and does not affect the remuneration corresponding to it, if the temporary posting is prolonged beyond the duration of one year. According to the Applicant, if the Administration is not able to fill the vacancy in one year, it cannot invoke its own failure against the officer occupying the post ad interim for a longer period.

The applicant alleges, in addition, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of the officials and of the principle of good administration. The Commission should have taken into consideration not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.

In a subsidiary manner, the Applicant stresses that he was nominated Head of Unit ad interim because the compulsory mobility plan obliged the holder of the post in question to switch to another post. For this reason, he alleges that its case should be covered by the last part of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, according to which the duration of a temporary posting can exceed one year, where, directly or indirectly, the posting is to replace an official who is seconded to another post in the interests of the service.

---
Exhibit 15.5

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-176419, 333-183976, 333-201326 and 333-208865) and on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-179792, 333-196390 and 333-205700) of BIOLINERX LTD. (the “Company”), of our report dated March 8, 2016, relating to the financial statements of the Company, which appears in this Form 20-F.




Tel-Aviv, Israel

March 10, 2016
/s/ Kesselman & Kesselman

Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

A member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited






Kesselman & Kesselman, Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street, Tel-Aviv 68125, Israel, P.O Box 452 Tel-Aviv 61003  Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.co.ilKesselman & Kesselman is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity
#### In re Albert PRIEST, Jr., Debtor. Albert PRIEST, Jr., Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Trusten E. Apperson and Janet J. Apperson, husband and wife, West Whittier Paint Co., Western Medical Commercial Exchange, Inc., a corporation, State of California, State Board of Equalization, Guadalupe Priest, wife of plaintiff herein, Curtis B. Danning, interim trustee, Defendants. Internal Revenue Service, United States of America, Defendant-Appellant, State of California, Employment Development Department, Defendant-Appellee. PROFESSIONAL ESCROW SERVICES, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. Esther B. MENDELSOHN, Robert Muchi-nikoff, Anita R. Muchnikoff, Robert Muchnikoff and Anita Muchnikoff dba Bob’s Luncheonette and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. State of California, Employment Development Department, Defendant-Appellee, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 82-5321, 82-5392.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 1983.

Decided Jan. 30, 1984.

Gayle P. Miller, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

Diane M. Spencer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

*478(Opinion August 10, 1983, 9 Cir., 1983, 712 F.2d 1326).

Before CHAMBERS, HUG and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

The amended opinion, 712 F.2d 1326, in these matters is further amended by inserting the following wording commencing at the final two lines on page 3750 of the slipsheet and continuing until the wording now found at line 4 of page 3751 resumes, at line 3 column 1 page 1329 of 712 F.2d and continuing until the wording found at line 10 resumes:

> the test of *New Britain.*We agree with the bankruptcy judge in *Priest*that under the current California statute, “a lien cannot arise prior to the taking of any administrative steps to establish the lien.” The mere receipt of a delinquent State tax return under the present scheme is too vague and indefinite.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-19-00568-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 2015-17893

Style: BMLA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy’s Deli

v. Keziah Jordan

Date motion filed*: December 15, 2021

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed: Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 17, 2021

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requested: January 18, 2022

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: January 18, 2022

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ April L. Farris

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 21, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9115 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9115

  To prohibit the Department of Defense from transporting Palestinian 
                     refugees to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2024

Mr. Arrington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Department of Defense from transporting Palestinian 
                     refugees to the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TRANSPORT OF 
              PALESTINIAN REFUGEES TO THE UNITED STATES.

    None of the fund authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
available to the Department of Defense may be made available for the 
operation of any aircraft of the Department of Defense to transport 
Palestinian refugees to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007199EN.01001301.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-410/06) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/15/EC - Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2007/C 199/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as agents)

Applicant:

Defendant(s): Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro agents)

Defendant(s):

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed all the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed all the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
#### L. Bamberger & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6676.

Entry No. N-1141.

Invoice dated London, England, April 15, 1946.

Certified April 15, 1946.

Entered at Newark, N. J., May 7, 1946.

(Decided December 26, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto :

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9243)

#### Plywood & Door Northern Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 827515, etc.

(Decided October 30, 1958)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel have stipulated and agreed in these cases as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” and “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of plywood and blockboard exported from Finland in the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 and that the merchandise is properly valued on the basis of the foreign value as defined in Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of *the*country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was, with respect to the merchandise referred to in schedule “A”, the appraised unit values, less 4% net packed and with respect to the merchandise set forth in Schedule “B”, the values set forth in Column 5 thereof, less 4% net packed.

On the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value, with respect to the merchandise *571covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of this decision, is the appraised unit values, less 4 per centum, net, packed, and with respect to the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” attached to and made a part of this decision, is as set forth in column 5 thereof, less 4 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Inca Global, Inc. (the Company ) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report) and pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Daniel Correa Phd., the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1. The Company’s Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual Report and the results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Annual Report.








July 14, 2011/S/Daniel Correa PhD.Daniel Correa PhD.

Chief Executive Officer







/S/Daniel Correa PhD.Daniel Correa PhD.

Chief Financial Officer








This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

        Inconnection with the annual report of BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George V. Migausky, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

    (1)                 the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

    (2)                 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/George V. MigauskyGeorge V. Migausky 
 Chief Financial Officer 

Date: November 15, 2004 

A signed copy of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
No. 59126.

protests 222461-K, etc. (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable as follows: (a) As to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (b) as to items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption subsequent to May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
Case No. 13,892.

#### The THOMAS.

[See Case No. 3.709.]
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION**

**906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                           |   | By:  | /s/              Charles P. Pizzi                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |      | Charles              P. Pizzi                                     |   |
|                                           |   |      | President              and Chief Executive Officer                |   |
|                                           |   |      |                                                                   |   |
|                                           |   |      |                                                                   |   |
|                                           |   | By:  | /s/              David S. Marberger                               |   |
|                                           |   |      | David              S. Marberger                                   |   |
|                                           |   |      | Executive              Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                           |   |      |                                                                   |   |
|                                           |   |      |                                                                   |   |
| Date:  November              5, 2007 |   |      |                                                                   |   |